Why Iraq and Afghanistan Have No Police

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


I noted yesterday that the U.S. has failed to build a police force in Iraq that can keep some semblance of order and doesn’t engage in torture and abuse on a widespread basis. But apparently there hasn’t been much success building up police forces in Afghanistan either. Why is that? Vance Serchuk has a long reported piece in the Weekly Standard trying to figure it out:

[B]uilding foreign police, it turns out, is something that the American government is expressly designed not to be able to do–the legacy of a 1974 congressional ban that abolished USAID’s Office of Public Safety, previously charged with these missions. Although exceptions to the act have since crept onto the statute books, their cumulative effect has been to make police assistance into a second-tier, ad hoc responsibility of several different agencies and actors scattered throughout the executive branch.

Just to be clear, then: one of the most important tasks for trying to piece a failed state back together again is an “ad hoc responsibility of several different agencies.” Serchuk notes that in Afghanistan, the Pentagon and the State Department are currently battling over who will control the police, and the result is constant skirmishing “over issues like which contractors to hire, what tactics the Afghan police can be taught, and whether key individuals should work out of the U.S. embassy or the military compound.” One can imagine the situation isn’t much better in Iraq. And short of a massive bureaucratic reorganization, this doesn’t seem like a problem that will be fixed anytime soon.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate